Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: muir_redwoods; All
Socialist/communist revolutions always end in the deaths of thousands or millions. The socialist monsters of the 20th century, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot and all the rest have the blood of millions on their hands.

2000 - David Horowitz: .........."As a student of the left, Jamie Glazov, has observed in an article about the middle-class defenders of recently captured Seventies terrorist Kathy Soliah: "if you can successfully camouflage your own pathology and hatred with a concern for the 'poor' and the 'downtrodden,' then there will always be a 'progressive' milieu to support and defend you."* Huey Newton, George Jackson, Bernadine Dohrn, Sylvia Baraldini, Rubin Carter, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Rigoberta Menchu and innumerable others have all discovered this principle in the course of their criminal careers.

There is a superficial sense, of course, in which we were civil rights and peace activists—and that is certainly the way I would have described myself at the time, particularly if I were speaking to a non-left audience. It is certainly the way Mrs. Clinton and my former comrades in the left refer to themselves and their pasts in similar contexts today.

But they are lying. (And when they defend racial preferences now—a principle they denounced as "racist" then—even they must know it).

The first truth about leftist missionaries, about believing progressives, is that they are liars. But they are not liars in the ordinary way, which is to say by choice. They are liars by necessity—often without even realizing that they are. Because they also lie to themselves. It is the political lie that gives their cause its life.

Why, for example, if you were one of them, would you tell the truth? If you were serious about your role in humanity's vanguard, if you had the knowledge (which others did not), that you were certain would lead them to a better world, why would you tell them a truth that they could not "understand" and that would hold them back?

If others could understand your truth, you would not think of yourself as a "vanguard." You would no longer inhabit the morally charmed world of an elite, whose members alone can see the light and whose mission is to lead the unenlightened towards it. If everybody could see the promised horizon and knew the path to reach it, the future would already have happened and there would be no need for the vanguard of the saints.

That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.

That is why it is of little concern to them that their socialist schemes have run aground, burying millions of human beings in their wake. That is why they don't care that their panaceas have caused more human suffering than all the injustices they have ever challenged. That is why they never learn from their "mistakes." That is why the continuance of Them is more important than any truth.

If you were active in the so-called "peace" movement or in the radical wing of the civil rights causes, why would you tell the truth? Why would you tell people that no, you weren't really a "peace activist," except in the sense that you were against America's war. Why would you draw attention to the fact that while you called yourselves "peace activists," you didn't oppose the Communists' war, and were gratified when America's enemies won?

What you were really against was not war at all, but American "imperialism" and American capitalism. What you truly hated was America's democracy, which you knew to be a "sham" because it was controlled by money in the end. That's why you wanted to "Bring the Troops Home," as your slogan said. Because if America's troops came home, America would lose and the Communists would win. And the progressive future would be one step closer."........... More at source

24 posted on 08/20/2012 5:08:32 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: Cincinatus' Wife
That is both the ethical core and psychological heart of what it means to be a part of the left. That is where the gratification comes from. To see yourself as a social redeemer. To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.

When I finally began to grow up and honestly study my "beliefs" this is exactly what I learned about myself. It wasn't pretty. Looking in the mirror was hard and painful. I realized that I cast my first vote for president for George McGovern because it made me feel self-righteous and smug. Another key for me- my entire family was Republican- (even some Goldwater Republicans) and my greatest concern at that time was showing them the selfish error they were making. Little did I understand that I was the selfish one! Ahhhh...the irony.

Maturing is never easy. Growing up as a baby-boomer was hard because little was required of us. But grow up I did- eventually. I look back with shame at my vote for McGovern- yet like other libs who woke up- my current convictions are not based on fantasy, but on clarity.

38 posted on 08/20/2012 6:16:25 AM PDT by SE Mom (Proud mom of an Iraq war combat vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
To feel anointed. In other words: To be progressive is itself the most satisfying narcissism.

Like a lot of people, I have liberal friends who can't resist posting their inanities on Facebook. I hum the tune "I'm In With The In-Crowd" when I read what amounts to a chest-thumping expression of their perceived moral superiority. It helps me just "let it go."

46 posted on 08/20/2012 8:26:35 AM PDT by Oratam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson